Wed, Dec 17, 2014, 9:44 PM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Federated National Holding Company Message Board

run_baldhead_run 15 posts  |  Last Activity: May 27, 2013 10:45 AM Member since: Nov 25, 2009
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Scott, I dont see why it cant hit $12 pretty soon. Their policy growth rate is tremendous. They had a 41% increase in homeowners policy count in the past year, which led to a 48% increase in revenue. And as someone mentioned in an earlier post, in the Conf Call, the CEO stated that in just the thirty-nine days between March 31 (the end of last quarter) and the date they gave the Conf Call (May 9), they added another 13,000 policies! So they grew from 67,000 homeowners policies to 80,000 policies in about five and a half weeks. Thats 2500 new policies each week on top of a base of 67,000 policies, 3.5% growth per week. Plus they said they expect growth to be very strong through 2014.

    They have a stronger price to book value then either HCI or UVE. And with their huge growth rate, which should result in very very strong earnings growth over the next year, they deserve a higher multiple then their competitors.

    Plus, FNHC is doing all this without the takeouts of Citizens policies used by UVE and HCI. If you exclude takeouts, FNHC has a far higher growth rate than any of their competitors, right? FNHC is gaining market share purely through organic growth.

    In the CC, FNHC seems to believe that these 'takeouts' are riskier than the policies they look at and add on an individual basis. HCI has strong growth, but thats helped dramatically for the past several years because they are adding Citizens (state owned) policies. According to FNHC, as I just said, those policies are riskier....and according to the FNHC conf call, the laws are changing, insurance companies wil no longer just be able to add Citizens policies in huge blocks. This makes FNHC's organic growth rate all the more impressive.

    FNHC deserves a premium to other Florida based insurer's on a price to book basis, and a price to earnings basis because of their huge organic growth rate......and conservative low risk managment, imo.

  • ..thats the last resistance from five plus years ago.

  • Reply to

    Insiders are loading up

    by robpittman1012 Feb 8, 2011 3:33 PM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Feb 8, 2011 3:38 PM Flag

    I bought some on the insider buying at $3.88

  • Reply to

    ZSTN not a fraud

    by uraniumbug Jan 8, 2011 12:20 PM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Jan 10, 2011 6:44 AM Flag

    michael,

    Ok, I'll take a look. But I'm not claiming that CCME is doing anything fraudulent. I'm just saying that from an outsiders perspective their margins look OMG high. I mean its not like they create software. And given the nature of competition and supply/demand, you'd think margins would have to come down a bunch at some point...maybe not short term.

    And I could be wrong.

  • Reply to

    ZSTN not a fraud

    by uraniumbug Jan 8, 2011 12:20 PM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Jan 9, 2011 2:05 PM Flag

    uranium, re: <China has High Speed Train and Bidu has higher P/E than Google, therefore China companies cannot be frauds!!!>

    Your logic is impeccable.

  • Reply to

    ZSTN not a fraud

    by uraniumbug Jan 8, 2011 12:20 PM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Jan 8, 2011 8:27 PM Flag

    uranium, re: <<It looks like in the U.S., everything is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty, but for Chinese companies trading in the U.S., they are assumed to be guilty of fraud, until proven innocent. This is really a double standard, one for the U.S. companies, one for Chinese companies.>>

    Uranium, the 'presumed innocent' thing in the US is only in a court of law. Outside the court you are allowed to presume anything you want.

    For instance, if many Chinese companies were to list on an American exchange, and then use the exchange to print simply sell shares to benefit themselves (while treating their American shareholders as 'Dupes'), an American investor could presume that a substantial number of Chinese companies (but not all) may be guilty of fraud.

    I presume that in China this kind of thing doesnt occur much, Theres definitely no tradition of a presumption of innocence there!!!, The perpetrators would probably be publicaly hung, and their family's punsished as well!

  • Reply to

    ZSTN not a fraud

    by uraniumbug Jan 8, 2011 12:20 PM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Jan 8, 2011 1:42 PM Flag

    forgot to mention the up to $50-mil shelf offering. I think this is more fodder for the people who believe ZSTN is fraudulent. They have a ton of cash already, and they dont even give a clue as to what their going to use all the additional money for.

    And what does management think ZSTN shares are worth? Well they seem to be willing to sell them for these ridiculously low prices. Are they going to be able to buy something thats accretive? With ZSTN's super low p/e, how is that possible?

    This S-3 filing shows that management doesnt get it; or they do get it, but their in the biz of selling shares for cash, not cable equipment.

    I think there's a good chance they pull the filing, but this still is a headscratcher.

  • Reply to

    ZSTN not a fraud

    by uraniumbug Jan 8, 2011 12:20 PM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Jan 8, 2011 1:33 PM Flag

    uranium,

    I think most believe ZSTN is a real business, with sales, and expenses, etc.. Investors are just questioning if their accounting numbers are truthful. Are their sales and margins really that high? Can their SG&A (inclusive of R&D expenses) really be that low? I mean their SG&A is what, like three or four percent of sales. Thats incredibly low. And their margins seem very high. I mean what do these guys do exactly to justify such margins? Are they basically just a distrbutor of commodity type items? They have virtually no R&D.

    As for CCME...I dont think many think the company is fraudulent. But some question the sustainability of their business model. Their gross margins are soooooo high, for a pretty basic advertising company. I mean what do they do thats so value added? They rent some space on buses, and then re-sell that same space for advertising at nine or ten times what they paid. Are the bus companies complete idiots for selling their assets so cheaply? I think shorts figure at some point the bus companies are gonna want a lot more money...I mean they must know what CCME is reselling the space at, its in public filings. And it probably wont happen, but the bus companies could do much much better by selling space direct, at 20% of what CCME is charging.

    Anyway, I own and trade a bunch of Chinas...but reviewing their financials does make my do a lot of headscratching.

    And I'm not saying either ZSTN or CCME are doing anything fraudelant, but it certainly wouldnt be a big surprise to me if they were.

    good luck.

  • Reply to

    Hey Fab - LTUS

    by wwrp55 Nov 30, 2009 3:37 PM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Dec 1, 2009 1:33 PM Flag

    wwrp, that was great news yesterday. Congrats.

    Unfortunately for me, I dont own any.

    best.

  • Reply to

    are Dram and Nlst partners why the plunge

    by popeyensweetp Dec 1, 2009 6:33 AM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Dec 1, 2009 8:09 AM Flag

    they have $4 million in cash now, $16 million a year ago.

    Since revenues are up (because they purhcased a Retail memory store and distributor six months ago), they may need more money to fund business.

    Since their stock has tripled off its lows and is at multi year high and they've been losing money, you are right - it may be a good time to raise a few dollars. Better safe than sorry.

  • Reply to

    are Dram and Nlst partners why the plunge

    by popeyensweetp Dec 1, 2009 6:33 AM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Dec 1, 2009 7:38 AM Flag

    A very small part of DRAM's business competes with NLST. I dont think they get any revenues from it so far. 99.9% of DRAM's biz is commodity memory.

    But since NLST got hot, DRAM's was picked by traders cause their new biz may have some sales in NLST's area.

    DRAM was fading to $2.60 before the NLST traders piled in and bought it up to $5.50. And since DRAM was $2.60 a few weeks ago, the only thing thats changed is that DRAM came out with really bad earnings.

    Without the NLST Momo, DRAM would probably be around two bucks.

  • run_baldhead_run by run_baldhead_run Nov 30, 2009 2:50 PM Flag

    ...They're down to $4 million cash from $16 million a year ago.

    Might be smart to raise cash at these prices. Mid threes seems decent. Only closed higher than that on four days this year. And its up three hundred percent off lows. Could fund their operations with a small offering.

    Next quarter will probably be a loss, and cash flow may be tight for the next couple of quarters.

    They bought that Micro Memory Bank retail unit earlier in the year. They got 25% of total sales from that store this quarter. Wonder if thats cash flow positive?

  • Reply to

    the move was on the new product

    by shortmomo Nov 25, 2009 8:28 AM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Nov 25, 2009 9:19 AM Flag

    uhhh.look at the income statement. You will see that I am correct.

  • Reply to

    the move was on the new product

    by shortmomo Nov 25, 2009 8:28 AM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Nov 25, 2009 9:15 AM Flag

    ...well, their competitors are profitable and their not.

    And they lost $2.6 mil from operations, and their R&D was $1.6 million. Of that at least what, a million per quarter will continue.

    How do you get they were almost breakeven? I mean with no R&D at all they would have lost a million from operations.

  • Reply to

    the move was on the new product

    by shortmomo Nov 25, 2009 8:28 AM
    run_baldhead_run run_baldhead_run Nov 25, 2009 8:53 AM Flag

    ...I think it will be a relatively small part of total business - but a profitable part. Rest of their biz is solid, but bsically commodity, hence their losses for a long time.

    Their valutation relative to their competitors on both a book value (they have $1.99 in tangble book) and p/e basis, is high. So they need the new product to do well.

    Be nice if there was just a little insider buying.

FNHC
24.95+0.49(+2.00%)Dec 17 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
NasdaqGSWed, Dec 17, 2014 4:00 PM EST
Kellogg Company
NYSEWed, Dec 17, 2014 4:02 PM EST